Male In-Group Bias?

There’s an article out in an open-source journal (apparently that’s a thing) called PLOS One that caught my eye. It’s been reported in the Washington Post and The Atlantic among other places and the headlines appear shocking:

WaPo: The remarkably different answers men and women give when asked who’s the smartest in the class

The Atlantic: XY Bias: How Male Biology Students See Their Female Peers

I wanted to take a closer look at this article not because I’m worried about women in STEM but because it seems to challenge a piece of conventional wisdom around these parts. Namely, it appears to contradict the idea that men don’t have in-group bias towards other men the way women do with other women. So, let’s take a closer look. A couple things before we start. First, go read the damn thing yourself. Don’t take my word for anything. I’m just a guy on the internet. Second, I’m a guy on the internet who has only a passing familiarity with the sort of advanced statistics used in this study so my comments on the statistical analysis will be limited. Finally, the authors on this are a mile long. The conventional way to cite would be Grunspan et al. as Daniel Grunspan is the first author. However, from the media coverage I get the sense that he was just the guy with the PhD. The person doing the work seems to have been a graduate student named Sarah Eddy. I’m going to avoid the hornet’s nest and just say authors.

Let’s start with what this study claims and we’ll work backwards. Here’s what our authors claim to have shown in their conclusion:

“The patterns of uneven peer perceptions by gender shown in our student population suggest that future populations of academics may perpetuate the same gender stereotypes that have been illuminated among current faculty. This may not only be the case because the male students receiving high celebrity are reaffirmed in their abilities and are better able to advance through the STEM pipeline than women who do not receive this affirmation, but also because the existence of “celebrity” males and other individuals with distinction can impact and reaffirm the stereotypes held by others”

So how on earth do we reach this conclusion. Well, a few leaps and bounds. Let’s start with what they did. To give the authors credit there’s actually a lot to like about this study. The sampling is reasonably broad.They sampled multiple classes multiple times. The statistical analytical tool (with the caveats above) appears to have been well selected and properly used. They seem to have realized flaws with their methodology and improved upon it as the study progressed. However, they really shot themselves in the foot at the first hurdle and the study never recovers.

The idea here was to get students in a biology class to name students in their courses (not themselves) at various times during the course who they thought either understood the material or were going to do well (two different questions depending on the survey timing). The researchers also asked the professors to note which students were actively participating in class. They took these two data points and combined them with the final grades (in GPA) that the students received and sought to determine whether there was any bias in the student answers based on gender. What they claim to have found is that men were much more likely to think men were doing well while women sought similarly of men and women.

Again, that all sounds good but let’s go back. The biology course they selected was the second of three introductory courses in biology at the University of Washington. They claim to have chosen this course so that students would have a passing familiarity with their colleagues and thus be better able to name them. While that’s a fair point, it would have been prudent to include the previous course marks in their evaluation. Students earn reputations. If the word around the dorm is that kid x is a biology wizard and aced Bio 101, he’s going to get a lot of votes at the start of Bio 102. It’s at very least worthwhile to disprove the hypothesis. They had access to grade information. This to me is a glaring oversight. You’ll notice at theme here as we progress. This criticism doesn’t invalidate their study but it does make me question it.

Next, let’s talk about what information they actually collected. The researchers collected two very binary data points. Students were given a class list and basically asked “Is this person good at biology? Y/N”. Professors were asked “Does this student participate? Y/N”. These aren’t bad questions but they limit severely the analysis you should be doing. For instance, on the participation question the authors concede:

“Thus, a student who frequently offers an incorrect answer in class is considered equally outspoken as students who frequently offer the correct answers.”

That’s a problem. I’ve been in enough classes to know that a lot of really smart kids who get really good grades ask some of the dumbest questions. It’s how they learn. However, when you sit in the room with them all you’re thinking is “that person is stupid.” Thus, by making it a binary question your analysis is now biased with a whole bunch of junk data. Again, we don’t’ know that this impacts the gender bias shown in their results but it muddies the water significantly. As is too often the case in social science, the unrecognized variables are the problem here.

On the question the students answered there’s a different problem. The researchers do a statistical analysis to show the bias of males towards males but they then make this rather absurd claim:

“Another way to understand the magnitude of the gender bias is to compare its coefficient to that for class grade point average (GPA), our best proxy for actual mastery of course material scored on a 4 point scale. Averaged across the 11 surveys, females give a boost to fellow females relative to males that is equivalent to an increase in GPA of 0.040; i.e. they would be equally likely to nominate an outspoken female with a 3.00 and an outspoken male with a 3.04. On the other hand, males give a boost to fellow males that is equivalent to a GPA increase of 0.765; for an outspoken female to be nominated by males at the same level as an outspoken male her performance would need to be over three-quarters of a GPA point higher than the male’s. On this scale, the male nominators’ gender bias is 19 times the size of the female nominators’.”

This is just fiction and of course it’s the part that’s been picked up by all the papers. How on earth do you go from a binary “Is this person good at biology” question and turn it into a comparison within a GPA scale? You can’t do that. There’s no incremental evaluation being made here. Students weren’t asked to estimate their peers’ GPA’s. They weren’t asked to rank their peers. They were merely asked a yes/no question. They weren’t even given guidance on what is required for a yes response. Some students might perceive doing well as a 3.00 GPA others might set the bar at 3.60 some at 4.00. We don’t know because nobody asked.

The maddening thing is their own data contradicts this supposed finding.They discuss that the distribution for this study was surprisingly top heavy. Fewer students got a larger share of the yes responses than expected and more students got no yes responses than expected. They also include as part of their discussion specific scores for the top vote getters. Now, with this distribution, it would be next to impossible for that claim to be true if, as shown in their own figure, 13 out of the 14 top male vote getters (accounting for 199 of 207 votes) in 3 final surveys had GPA’s less than 0.765 from the maximum of 4.00 (the top mark given at UW). I understand that their findings are based on simulations derived from the data, and their might be some incongruence as a result but that just doesn’t pass the smell test.

Now, if we assume that this is just an anomaly, it further contradicts their conclusions. Remember, this piece is all about how men are magically buffeted by their “celebrity” status conferred upon them by other men. So, we should be looking, as feminists always are, at the top. The conclusions the authors reach are not about the people receiving one or two votes. They are about the big men in bio class. So, even if this GPA finding is statistically justifiable, it’s irrelevant to their conclusions. Let’s take a minute now to evaluate that conclusion.First, if as the authors claim, women’s perceptions are fairly accurate. The celebrity-ness of their male colleagues should have zero impact on them. They aren’t the ones overestimating the know-it-alls. They don’t underestimate their female peers either. So, how on earth would a person who has an accurate view that there are smart people of both sexes in the class (both men and women did well in this course), somehow believe that she can’t make it?

Moreover, they never demonstrate that this “affirmation” that the male students receive helps them. This isn’t a study that shows that people do better when people believe in them. There might be a study out there that does that, but this isn’t it. Furthermore, the suggestion that somehow this alleged bias has long term consequences is so far beyond of the scope of the study as to venture into the absurd. You would be equally justified in saying that men are more likely to be swindled by a fast talking salesman in the future. The only conclusion that this very flawed study has is that men are more likely to perceive other men as competent if they make some demonstration of that competence. That’s not exactly earth shattering.

5- As an aside, this is a really smart cost saving idea by the university. Dividing up the course as much as possible limits the number of students who are going to take up valuable lab time and resources in the second and third course.

Went up against some patriarchy hating, herbivore hating, MGTOW hating feminists today. I must say, it was really, really good. Here are the highlights:

Note that my username is “reasons” and my status is “banned”. They banned me because I really trounced a feminist after she asked me why IRAQ has more women in their parliament than the US has women in congress (spoiler – it’s quotas – like in feminist Canada).

From the Japanese herbivore perspective, relationships are just too much of a burden. Why bother with it? From the MGTOW perspective, the game has changed and is anti-male. So no marriage, commitment and be darn sure to video tape her affirmative consent. This is how you end up losing a million in population over five years like in Japan.

The two mindsets overlap one another but I find myself more of a Japanese herbivore than a MGTOW. I agree with both mindsets however. Men that never heard of either herbivore men or MGTOW are, more and more, subconsciously becoming a bit of one or both because that’s the natural outcome of tilting the balance of power too much into women’s hands. I don’t know if there’s ever been a lasting matriarchal society. Sweden seems to come closest but they heavily subsidize (pay) women to have babies there.

Men stop committing and will most certainly stop producing if there’s no incentives and/or rewards. In other words, once a man figures out that the game is rigged against him or that the work outweighs the rewards – it’s bye bye marriage, commitment and productivity. When you drive down the road, most of what you see was built by men for this very reason. Men built the world you see today so that they can rule and screw. Take that away and men go their own way or go herbivore. Women will most certainly need to be strong and independent because, over time, men will simply stop caring about them all together.

Japan is a great example of the above but so is most of Europe, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. A few Westernized countries besides Japan had even lower birth rates than Japan and nearly non-existent marriage rates. The US would be in the same position as Japan had it not been for mass immigration. The best kept secret these days is that those European/Scandinavian countries are not mass importing refugees out of the kindness of the government heart. In truth, they’re mass importing refugees because it they don’t, thanks to declining marriage and birth rates among the indigenous in Westernized countries, the social welfare (Ponzi schemes) will collapse – leaving inconceivable numbers of elderly to starve to death. You need lots of taxpayers to support those schemes. Mass immigration of refugees just might ensure a comfortable retirement for the aging indigenous of Westernized societies but will wipe out their culture and legacy – which is why Japan abhors mass immigration.

The part that most interests me is what happens when feminism takes over the patriarchal countries that are currently supplying the Western/feminized countries with human replacements and keeping them on life support? I’m guessing they’ll have a huge decline in marriage and birth rates there as well, cutting off the lifeline of refugees, resulting in a global population decline like Japan. Some theorists even think that this was the whole plot of feminism – to reverse population growth.

For me, none of this matters much. I’m happily single, introverted, moneyed, child-free and most of my working years are behind me. I’m looking at a luxurious retirement. If it ever gets to the point where I can’t take care of myself anymore – I’ll find a bridge and jump. There might even be more legal assisted suicide by then. If that’s the case, I’ll go out that way. It’s going to be really interesting for future generations however. I’m almost glad I’ll be dead before the real problems begin – though I have a morbid fascination with the eventual outcome of it all.

Your first paragraph is why there is militant feminism. When all men want from women is to “screw” them; as well as rule over them; it creates so much abuse, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Since women are human beings (they are, you know), they don’t want to exist solely to be “screwed” and ruled over. Amazing, huh?

I too, see the need for legally assisted suicide. It would be wonderful if it was in place when I am at the end of my life, possibly terminally ill, with no family and little money.

But you know who will stop it from happening? Not the religious people. It will be blocked, instead, by the long term care and pharmaceutical industries. Do you realize how much money those businesses would lose if people ended their lives in their late 70’s, versus being on prescriptions and living in rest homes ’til their mid 90’s and beyond? Come on now! Not saying euthanasia will never come to pass; but it will be one h*ll off a fight to get it legalized.

==========================================================

ANSWER’S RESPONSE TO THE HIT PIECE RENDERED:

Just telling it like it is folks. Nothing pisses people off more than the realities of life.

Modern militant feminism exists because too many fatties got beer goggle pump and dumped by alpha Chads, which got the dawarkians (or whatever her name is) of the world organized and all man-hating. Now, feminists rule the schools and teach man-hating courses from kindergarten through doctorate degree. Mrs. Click from Mizzou is a likely byproduct of that brainwashing. Today’s representation of this man-hating training is Jackie and the Rolling Stones, Brian Banks, Duke Lacrosse and my latest and greatest favorite, Souad Faress (Game of Thrones actress) of the UK who accused a man of sexual assault for bumping into her while passing in the tube station. If you haven’t looked her story up, it’s a chilling read and telling tale of what modern feminists are really after. That’s one deeply sociopathic woman.

Modern feminism is about the acquisition of total power and control over men by the most privileged and disturbed gender to have ever lived – Western feminists. Modern feminism is about absolute power and absolute corruption. The latest sociopathic effort by feminists is to remove due process and presumption of innocence from men when they’ve been accused of rape or sexual assault. “Oooh – Don’t have a video tape of her saying yes at every stage of the encounter? Well, you’re guilty unless you can prove she consistently said yes, enthusiastically, all throughout the encounter and never withdrew consent. Too bad for you! Bye, bye!” Add to that the deeply falsified feminist book-cooked rape stats that started the rape hysteria in the first place and the patently false false rape stat of 1-8% and you’ve got a certified department of loony bin ready feminists on every college campus in the US.

There are lots of women who just want to screw too, right? Right. This is a power struggle see which gender comes out on top. I’m not foolish enough to believe this is about me wanting to screw and forgo the often life destroying consequences of marriage and divorce.

Agree with you on thing about those that profit from long-term care doing everything they can to prevent people from humanely ending their own lives however. We do it for our pets out of love so they don’t suffer. I don’t see why we can’t do it for ourselves when we can no longer care for ourselves late in life, too. I don’t want anyone bathing me or wiping my @ because I’m too out to lunch or physically incapable of doing it myself. If you’d rather scrape me from the front of a semi or scrape my brains from a wall, so be it. Now that’s inhumane. I refuse to die drooling 24/7 if I can help it.

==========================================================

FEMINAZI AGAINST ANSWER’S REPLY:

If Western feminists are all about absolute power and are currently ruling the legal system and the schools, how do you explain the fact that both Afghanistan and Iraq have a higher percentage of women in parliament than the US?

==========================================================

ANSWER’S TWO PART REPLY TO MAN-HATER REGARDING WOMEN’S PRESTIGE IN THE IRAQ PARLIAMENT:

You tell me. Women are the majority of voters in the US. If the patriarchy is so evil – why are women hesitating to vote us out? We ask ourselves this same question at every patriarchy meeting. “Why haven’t we been voted out yet?”

Ah – I just looked it up. Quotas. It’s the same reason women make up half of the Chad’s cabinet in feminist Canada. Affirmative action.

==========================================================

ANOTHER FEMINAZI DARES ENTER ANSWER’S SPACE AND GETS BURNED:

“Japan is about as patriarchal as they come, and so it’s a bit odd to attribute the herbivores to a “feminized society.”

Herbivore men are the result of salarymen having to work seventy hours a week only to have to hand their husband-hating wives their paychecks. Why do that when you can live a reasonably simple life, have lots of fun and avoid the wifely disdain? Same for America. One in two married men will end up divorced. For those with kids, its years and sometimes decades of living in poverty while handing your check over to your X wife – who’s now treating her boy toy boyfriend to dinner with your earnings – and writing off the money you give her on her taxes. If you fail to pay – you’ll go to jail, where you’ll be raped – even if you lose your job, become unable to work – or take a huge pay cut.

Herbivore men and MGTOW exist for very good – risk vs reward – reasons.

BAN HAMMER ISSUED BY FEMINAZIS

==========================================================

FINAL ANALYSIS:

Got almost immediately banned from a site dedicated to discussing marriage by a bunch of insane feminists trying to brainwash men into destroying their lives by giving women the very thing that destroys men’s lives – the ring of power.

Male in-group bias?

MGTOW – Men refusing to willingly cut off their balls and hand them to women. See marriage.

Women – That which castrates you physically and financially. See divorce.

See the one thing you are missing is the idea that MGTOW will be allowed to continue in perpetuity. I cited an article from “The Feminist Current” about how the idea of a male only curfew needs to be considered. Some might contend that the deprivation of physical liberty is a “fringe view”…but today’s fringe views often become tomorrow’s law of the land…just look at history for about a million examples. As I mentioned in my reply The Little Engine…if the 49% somehow think that they currently hold reduced status in the West; well the degree to which that status is reduced can be multiplied ten fold in the coming years.

Timothy, it is apparent that things are going marvelously for your gender…per the linked article I cite…males no longer can utilize so-called “man caves”…small sections of their homes that serve as sanctuaries. Instead, males are being relegated to “man sheds”…which are not in the physical house but out on the property. Of course, his spouse reserves the right to decorate it for him.

> …per the linked article I cite…males no longer can utilize so-called “man caves”…small sections of their > homes that serve as sanctuaries

Looks like sheddingoftheego has acquired a female troll who considers whatever the lamestream media spews as gospel. The readers of this site should google “hypoagency” – it describes the universal desire for women to try and invade and appropriate male spaces.

When you characterize contrasting opinions as “trolling”…you have devolved into the mindset of an ideologue of the first magnitude…shedding the ability to consider and process ideas that contrast with your own narrow world view. You have ceased to grow…and you are nothing more than a tedious soul with a body that may be free to roam but a mind paralyzed by an inertia that yields a metaphorical catatonic outlook…

Its common knowledge that both men and women look more favorably upon women. This article just seems like another attempt to obfuscate what everyone instinctively knows in society – that women are privileged over men. If this elephant in the room were ever to be outright admitted that would deprive women of their victim status and all the goodies that it entails.

> what everyone instinctively knows in society – that women are privileged over men.

Now here is the Big Question…what happens next? I recall reading someone write that the Misandry Bubble would burst in 2020…that was in 2010. Six years later, the bubble seems to be gaining in thickness and impenetrability…no longer made of ether…it now is composed of transparent aluminum.

As the shackles of Society continue to tighten around the Slave Gender, I have accurately forecast that the “Men’s Movement” would gain traction and members…swelling in ranks. This is just common sense…simply based on an overall numerical increase in males metaphorically disenfranchised.

However, the idea that the other side is idly sitting by is foolishness. Patton once wrote, “Always take the offensive; never dig in”…and this is *de rigueur* for those running the show.

There will eventually come to a head…and my prediction is that the rights of The 49% will be *drastically* circumscribed (ooh…cute one!)…and They will long for the current state of affairs wistfully…as life nowadays will resemble a veritable hay ride in The Very Near Future for that demographic.

The same thing that has occurred in all developed societies. In response to men discarding their roles as sacrificial slaves to women, the government and society (aka women; I believe at this point women are essentially society due to their massive advantage in social power which was previously more subtle but now includes overt control) will simply double down on men.

Such “helpful” implements like Obamacare are merely a start of what is to come. If any of you has read up on the downfall of Rome you will recall there was a ‘bachelor tax’ instituted in order to ‘force’ men to marry. However, men either married foreign females or simply just paid the tax.

The government and women both receive their resources from men, either collectively or individually and they instinctively realize this. The problem is, they cannot force men collectively to simply produce more and slowly the system will erode, unable to support itself. People respond to incentives and currently society provides males with none, while still demanding they contribute. Regardless of how draconian laws progress (and they will) you simply can’t squeeze blood from a stone.

You are missing one important caveat…the role of feminism in educating and empowering Women. We are at the first point in recent world history where most Women can sustain themselves…this was not the case at any point prior to 1966 or so…so your assertion that “women receive their resources from men” is patently false.

Absolutely. This is why men pay over 70% of taxes, work grueling blue and white collar jobs essential to the upkeep of society and women must resort to the strong arm of big daddy government (also another male proxy) to wrench away money through “child support” and “alimony”. It also explains why women have still not added themselves to selective service and enforced laws ensuring male sovereignty.

Indeed, I was truly wrong about women being reliant on men for upkeep.

> You are missing one important caveat…the role of feminism in educating and empowering Women.

In the year 2016, feminism has empowered womyn with expensive useless degrees, six-figure student loans, and a headstart at becoming a crazy old cat lady.

> We are at the first point in recent world history where most Women can sustain themselves…

On what? They don’t do the jobs that hold society together and still depend on resource transfer from men. More and more jobs are being automated, but it’ll still be decades before that process runs its course. In the meantime, women are in for some rough sailing. And it’s men who drive the process of innovation.

> this was not the case at any point prior to 1966 or so…so your assertion that “women receive their resources from men” is patently false.

If they don’t, what’s the point of enslaving men? You’re contradicting yourself.

>In the year 2016, feminism has empowered womyn with expensive useless degrees, six-figure student loans, and a headstart at becoming a crazy old cat lady.

Not true at all…women have jobs in many important areas…law, medicine, business & industry. The degrees are not useless if they are getting good jobs. And please dispense with the tiresome “cat” commentary…these foolish characterizations are figments of your over active imagination.

>If they don’t, what’s the point of enslaving men? You’re contradicting yourself.

We do not receive many of our resources from men…but once under *firmer* control, think about all the benefits (including splendidly easy living) the 51% would enjoy…it would be a veritable Paradise for Us.

> Not true at all…women have jobs in many important areas…law, medicine, business & industry.

Tons of makework crap. A combination of automation plus “AI” will slowly but surely squeeze them out. Regulatory agencies, education (higher education in particular), law, and the public sector as a whole are all overdue to be scaled back.

In healthcare women do make a legitimate contribution, but that’s susceptible to automation too.

> And please dispense with the tiresome “cat” commentary…these foolish characterizations are figments of your over active imagination.

Most cat owners, and “cat hoarders” in particular, are women. Refute it if you can. But I realize some women may go for toy dogs to fill their displaced mothering needs.

> We do not receive many of our resources from men…

Dream on. If men packed up and left for Mars tomorrow, society would implode almost instantly. The reverse isn’t true. Here’s an example of what happens to women when they’re left to fend for themselves.

The misallocation of human and economic capital brought about by the overvaluing of women and the undervaluing of men comes to an end. An abrupt one.

> I recall reading someone write that the Misandry Bubble would burst in 2020…that was in 2010.

Sounds about right to me.

> Six years later, the bubble seems to be gaining in thickness and impenetrability…no longer made of ether…it now is composed of transparent aluminum.

It’ll burst just the same when enough pressure builds inside.

> However, the idea that the other side is idly sitting by is foolishness.

Of course not. One safe prediction is the the number of concern trolls like yourself will multiply and infest manosphere sites.

> Patton once wrote, “Always take the offensive; never dig in”…and this is *de rigueur* for those running the show.

While Fabian managed to defeat Hannibal by a strategy of delay and avoiding direct battle. The Russians successfully used a similar approach with Napoleon with their scorched-Earth policy. There is no one-size-fits-all military strategy and time is on our side.

>There will eventually come to a head…and my prediction is that the rights of The 49% will be
> *drastically* circumscribed

The severe economic punishment resulting from trying to do that will put the brakes on that, just as surely as attempting to tax beyond the Laffer limit.

Oh, my…an intellectual male…though such a fusion would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Once the Gynocracy is firmly ensconced, We will need your kind to do all the mundane technical work We cannot be bothered with. Enslavement is your gender’s unalterable destiny…and the reality of it is getting closer every day.

Uh-huh. If you go through a book like Charles Murray’s Human Achievement, you’ll find enough of those contradictions to make your silly little female head explode.

> Once the Gynocracy is firmly ensconced,

Tell me, what is going to firmly ensconce it? Every technical advance in our current world makes “grrl power” more redundant, from office work (can and is being automated) to female sexuality (VR porn will allow men to get laid like a king for less than the cost of a Happy Meal).

The ‘researchers’ seem to have confused what is likely a sub-conscious rationalization, with male in-group bias.

Even if men are not consciously connecting the dots, their minds are absorbing the reality of the anti-male bias in academia. Therefore it makes perfect sense that they would rate other men higher. They understand without conscious effort that a man making headway within anti-male academia must indeed be performing well above any female peer.

“Most cat owners, and “cat hoarders” in particular, are women. Refute it if you can. But I realize some women may go for toy dogs to fill their displaced mothering needs.”

No one loves cats & kittens more than I do…they are the very embodiment of Feminine Superiority…sleek & quick….however, your original harsh characterization was punctuated by two negative adjectives… “crazy” and “old”…in an effort to make Women look bad…and so you need to be castigated for your heresy.

My personal policy is that it’s ok to slap them around a few times for my own amusement, then ignore them afterwards. In her case, I set up a Greasemonkey script to delete them all, since she had spammed so many responses to my postings it was cluttering up the page.

> Stop feeding the troll.

If it annoys you that much, take it up with the blog owner . Or set up your own filter.

OMG sooo gross! Eew! (But, on second thought, not an unexpected endeavor for the demographic destined from birth for all the unpleasant & filthy grunt work The Superior Gender would not go anywhere near).

“My personal policy is that it’s ok to slap them around a few times for my own amusement”

I assume this is meant in a metaphorical sense…if not, it is probably not prudent to acknowledge an affinity for assault online. Even if it is the former, it still reveals deep seated envy of and hatred towards your Betters…

> however, your original harsh characterization was punctuated by two negative adjectives… “crazy” and “old”

Hoarders, animal hoarders in particular, are notably irrational – it’s even listed in the DSM-V as a psychiatric disorder. And even in cases where the animals are well cared for, a woman displacing her mothering instinct onto an animal is far from ideal.

> If you think We are going to tell the likes of you…well, you have another guess coming…

A simpler explanation is that you don’t have any answer to my question.

> Such irony that you would rely on the thought of a man whose seminal work very much embodies the social status of your gender…”Losing Ground”…lol.

Among other things, he showed that “women’s liberation” has done exactly nothing in terms of having a positive effect on scientific and technological progress.

If things were going just fine for your kind, what would be the reason for the geometric increase in the number of these MRA sites on the web?

Better communication – they have your number. That’s what the Internet enables.

Economics is not an exact science.

So what? It’s still possible to pick out broad trends based on supply, demand, and return on investment.

> Attempting to forecast definitive outcomes based on subjective theories rather than objective and absolute realities is foolishness.

Well, we’ll just have to see then. I believe that in the near future (over the next 5-15 years), social and technological trends will combine to transfer the costs of misandry directly back to women.

I wouldn’t be too sure about that. If things were going just fine for your kind, what would be the reason for the geometric increase in the number of these MRA sites on the web? Like all movements for social change, the MRA’s are fueled by their own failures…if all of a sudden all of their desires were codified into law…the movement would collapse almost instantaneously. But it is their *failures* that galvanize them…and increase their numbers.

The severe economic punishment resulting from trying to do that will put the brakes on that, just as surely as attempting to tax beyond the Laffer limit.

Economics is not an exact science. It is not geometry or calculus or thermodynamics. Attempting to forecast definitive outcomes based on subjective theories rather than objective and absolute realities is foolishness…as has been proven time w/o number during the course of human history.

“The severe economic punishment resulting from trying to do that will put the brakes on that, just as surely as attempting to tax beyond the Laffer limit.”

Economics is not an exact science. It is not geometry or calculus or thermodynamics. Attempting to forecast definitive outcomes based on subjective theories rather than objective and absolute realities is foolishness…as has been proven time w/o number during the course of human history.

Both of my widowed grandmothers supported them selves and children during the 1930s

Do you really think the vast majority of widows and their children starved to death after the Vietnam war?”

Some women did sustain themselves in the old days…but society’s fundamental precept before the mid point of the 20th century was for a woman to marry and have her husband support her. This has all been changed in the last 50 to 60 years…a change for the better, I might add…as dependency is the equivalent of thralldom. True freedom is embodied by self reliance and dependence on no one but yourself…a concept I embrace wholeheartedly.

Love the picture. Unfortunately, the book its lifted from is more of the same old gynocentric crap. A brief google synopsis shows the male bears made a boy’s only club in response to the young female bear being superior to them in physical and otherwise masculine prowess. In other words a separation of sexes due to an inferiority complex on man’s part.

This is of course complete buffoonery, and yet again shows how our society has a degenerative view of male-only spaces. The implication being men only make separate spaces to hide their inferiority to women or that a space without the inclusion of women is somehow incomplete or lacking. Naturally, women need female-only spaces of course because men are apparently only capable of perversion, destruction and other similarly naughty things.

If I recall, these series of children’s books are (I assume) supposed to teach about life lessons and maturity. Its no wonder the younger generations grow up brainwashed into the gynocentric cult.

When you get right down to it, hat difference does *any* of it make. I have a fair amount of sympathy for the prescient retort that John Maynard Keynes offered when the impact of his economic policies in “the long run” were questioned. Keynes reply, “In the long run, we are all dead.”

I mean I’m likely passed the halfway point on my journey to the grave (per most actuarial charts) and the quality of my life probably exceeded that of 95% of the people who have ever lived since we began walking upright about 100 centuries ago…and I yet feel no sense of innate satisfaction or that I have marvelous experiences on the horizon. In the words of Livia Soprano, “It’s all a big nothin’.”

Very insightful, thanks for the insight. Write an article sometime, the comment section doesn’t do your exceptional genius much justice. Maybe a book on stating the obvious like a broken record if you have the free time. I’m open to new ideas (might even put your repeats on repeat in case I miss some key themes).

And lets say there is a hereafter…which certainly is within the realm of possibility…so what? So we can continue the absurdity of it all in perpetuity? As they say in Espanol, “Basta ya”…”enough already”.

The best thing anyone can do is to never give another significant power to destroy their lives. Why? Because humans are self interested and, given the right amount of incentive, will destroy anyone on their path to success.

Ever think of why the Germans and Japanese hoped to overrun and enslave and/or mass murder anyone in their way? If you think about it long enough, you’ll come to some extremely uncomfortable truths about human nature.